| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 07:29:29 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
http://imagoveritatis.myatts.net/comments.php?id=24_0_1_0_C
Don't Believe It
I ran into a blog that claims to be based on "reason" alone and it
turned out to be, predictably, run by an Objectivist (with a capital
"O" that means a disciple of Ayn Rand). Objectivism is a form of
atheism, though they tend to focus much more on the positive aspects of
their system rather than getting hung up on the God thing, unlike the
folks over at infidels.org. Anyway, that prompted to me to pull off the
shelf one of the many books that I have bought and put away for future
reading, (whenever that is - heh, heh) and before I knew it I was well
into it. The book is John Robbins' Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand and the
Close of Her System, available here.
Well, the book is a masterpiece, and though I don't follow every detail
of Gordon Clark's philosophy which figures heavily in Robbins'
argument, by the end of the chapter on epistemology he has reduced
Rand's system to a pile of rubble that is hopelessly beyond salvaging.
In fact, one cannot but conclude, after reading this analysis, that
Rand's system, rather than being founded upon reason, is profoundly
irrational. It surely requires a blind leap of faith to grasp. I won't
repeat the arguments here; the reader is encouraged to get the book and
see.
So, in that vein, I have been scrounging around the web to see what
else there is in the blogosphere (hey I'm getting into this new lingo!)
when I came across this piece from Tertius, who complains about
atheists who pretend that they do not have a world view, but rather
that they simply lack a belief in God. He calls this atheism lite -
well put I think - because it IS a cop out, as he shows. I have run
across this kind of thing, of course and after analyzing atheism I came
up with at least four positive philosophical assertions that
necessariliy follow from the denial of the existence of God, which are
discussed on page 10 of my conversations with atheists and which I will
quote here:
So when the atheist denies or says he does not believe in a God, he is
necessarily making a number of positive world view presuppositions
about the nature of the universe. What are some of these? At least the
following:
1) The universe is self-sufficient in its existence and operations. It
is autonomous and not dependent upon another external entity, but
functions based on the laws of nature which determine its character.
2) The principles of knowledge or interpretation of the universe are
contained within and derived from the universe itself. There is no need
for a revelation or interpretation of the universe from a vantage point
outside of the universe. Since there is no outside the universe,
according to the atheist, no such revelation could exist in any case.
Therefore, the ultimate reference point for predication and
interpretation is a principle such as logic, sense perception,
intuition, all of which must exist in the universe, and which were
derived ultimately from human reason. The human mind is autonomous and
is adequate to discover truth on its own, using its own methods. All
truth claims must pass the test of human reason. There is no higher
authority.
3) Right and wrong are relative terms that describe social norms
developed by humankind to enhance its survival and pleasure. There is
no absolute right and wrong and in the end, it is the autonomous human
mind that legislates morality.
4) There is no discernible purpose to history or in the operations and
existence of the universe. The universe is the ultimate reality and it
is impersonal and unconcerned about us or our fate. It is simply there
and appears to be what it is largely as a result of chance. The human
future is undetermined, since there is no divine plan governing it. The
meaning of life is what we make of it based on the decisions of our
autonomous wills, and there is no final meaning in the end.
Each of these four notions corresponds to an interpretation of the four
areas that define a world view: ontology (the nature of reality or
being), epistemology (the theory of how we have and justify knowledge),
ethics (the theory of the ultimate good and of moral action), and
teleology (the theory of the purpose of it all). Thus, we see that the
denial of belief in God necessarily implies a basic set of world view
assumptions (axioms or presuppositions) that form a positive
interpretation of the state of affairs.
So the atheist really has no excuse and nowhere to hide. The assertion
that atheism is just a denial is merely a smokescreen to avoid having
to mount a defense of his position. But that emperor is stark naked.
The atheist who wants any intellectual respect is both philosophically
and morally obligated to defend his beliefs as a system, and that means
defending the above assertions. And that puts his whole system up for
discussion. Once we open that door then it is only a matter of time
before the inherent irrationality of atheism reveals itself and the
atheist has to look squarely in the face that fact that his whole
system is built on a leap of faith, and a blind one at that.
.
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 02:13:26 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this debate,
ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side that has
much to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the idea of ID
you will find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where
evolution is studied. Science with a capital "S" absolutely supports
the theory.
There are no other valid theories.
You're entitled to your opinion.
It is fact, not opinion.
But the difference between what you claim and the way science works is
simple.
Show a theory that falsifies anything and it will be accepted
In this case it's even easier, show that there are a significant number
of
scientists that don't believe evolution is a theory and the work they
have
done to falsify it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new discovery can
and likely will have an impact on current Scientific thought.
Which pretty much validates what I said about you not knowing what a
theory
is nor how science works.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that allows us to
put a rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a problem for
me.
Well, that's #4 who *knows* he owns the absolute truth.
Drones on parade.
Would it be satisfactory to just admit once and for all that all our
scientific findings are provisional upon the accuracy of our
observations and the current state of theory,
Why, that's common knowledge, at your better "science shops."
or would you also like
to see the caveat "Unless there was a miracle..."?
I don't know what you're talking about. Miracles have no explanation.
Or would you like these to be stated each and every time anybody says
something?
C'mon Kelo, we're all human. We don't qualify everything we say.
Why the change of heart?
In anycase, when someone expresses supreme knowledge, It bears
acknowledgment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 03:37:29 PM |
|
|
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this debate,
ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side that has
much to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the idea of ID
you will find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where
evolution is studied. Science with a capital "S" absolutely supports
the theory.
There are no other valid theories.
You're entitled to your opinion.
It is fact, not opinion.
But the difference between what you claim and the way science works is
simple.
Show a theory that falsifies anything and it will be accepted
In this case it's even easier, show that there are a significant number
of
scientists that don't believe evolution is a theory and the work they
have
done to falsify it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new discovery can
and likely will have an impact on current Scientific thought.
Which pretty much validates what I said about you not knowing what a
theory
is nor how science works.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that allows us to
put a rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a problem for
me.
Well, that's #4 who *knows* he owns the absolute truth.
Drones on parade.
Would it be satisfactory to just admit once and for all that all our
scientific findings are provisional upon the accuracy of our
observations and the current state of theory,
Why, that's common knowledge, at your better "science shops."
Yes.
or would you also like
to see the caveat "Unless there was a miracle..."?
I don't know what you're talking about. Miracles have no explanation.
ID is a miracle.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 03:40:43 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uvtfl19uij19pgh208o98atk356570o1vb@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this
debate,
ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side that has
much to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the idea of
ID
you will find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where
evolution is studied. Science with a capital "S" absolutely
supports
the theory.
There are no other valid theories.
You're entitled to your opinion.
It is fact, not opinion.
But the difference between what you claim and the way science works
is
simple.
Show a theory that falsifies anything and it will be accepted
In this case it's even easier, show that there are a significant
number
of
scientists that don't believe evolution is a theory and the work
they
have
done to falsify it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new discovery
can
and likely will have an impact on current Scientific thought.
Which pretty much validates what I said about you not knowing what a
theory
is nor how science works.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that allows us
to
put a rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a problem for
me.
Well, that's #4 who *knows* he owns the absolute truth.
Drones on parade.
Would it be satisfactory to just admit once and for all that all our
scientific findings are provisional upon the accuracy of our
observations and the current state of theory,
Why, that's common knowledge, at your better "science shops."
Yes.
or would you also like
to see the caveat "Unless there was a miracle..."?
I don't know what you're talking about. Miracles have no explanation.
ID is a miracle.
No, it is not.
On second thought, to you, it is a miracle. Kind of like the first time
members of the Yanomamis heard the sound of an internal combustion engine
emanating from the canopy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 04:30:36 PM |
|
|
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uvtfl19uij19pgh208o98atk356570o1vb@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this
debate,
ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side that has
much to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the idea of
ID
you will find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where
evolution is studied. Science with a capital "S" absolutely
supports
the theory.
There are no other valid theories.
You're entitled to your opinion.
It is fact, not opinion.
But the difference between what you claim and the way science works
is
simple.
Show a theory that falsifies anything and it will be accepted
In this case it's even easier, show that there are a significant
number
of
scientists that don't believe evolution is a theory and the work
they
have
done to falsify it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new discovery
can
and likely will have an impact on current Scientific thought.
Which pretty much validates what I said about you not knowing what a
theory
is nor how science works.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that allows us
to
put a rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a problem for
me.
Well, that's #4 who *knows* he owns the absolute truth.
Drones on parade.
Would it be satisfactory to just admit once and for all that all our
scientific findings are provisional upon the accuracy of our
observations and the current state of theory,
Why, that's common knowledge, at your better "science shops."
Yes.
or would you also like
to see the caveat "Unless there was a miracle..."?
I don't know what you're talking about. Miracles have no explanation.
ID is a miracle.
No, it is not.
Yes it is, definitively. It's a real miracle. (if it happened). Look
into the concept of miracle if you don't believe me. But why would you
deny it? A miracle is an event that cannot be explained by the known
laws of nature and is therefore attributed to a supernatural or divine
power. The power behind ID would be super-natural.
On second thought, to you, it is a miracle. Kind of like the first time
members of the Yanomamis heard the sound of an internal combustion engine
emanating from the canopy.
No, it's not that kind of miracle. It's a real miracle.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 04:21:00 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rn0gl1t3sg8c38i1q6svoio4q5va0she1v@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uvtfl19uij19pgh208o98atk356570o1vb@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this
debate,
ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side that
has
much to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the idea
of
ID
you will find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where
evolution is studied. Science with a capital "S" absolutely
supports
the theory.
There are no other valid theories.
You're entitled to your opinion.
It is fact, not opinion.
But the difference between what you claim and the way science
works
is
simple.
Show a theory that falsifies anything and it will be accepted
In this case it's even easier, show that there are a significant
number
of
scientists that don't believe evolution is a theory and the work
they
have
done to falsify it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All
I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that
Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new
discovery
can
and likely will have an impact on current Scientific thought.
Which pretty much validates what I said about you not knowing
what a
theory
is nor how science works.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that allows
us
to
put a rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a problem
for
me.
Well, that's #4 who *knows* he owns the absolute truth.
Drones on parade.
Would it be satisfactory to just admit once and for all that all our
scientific findings are provisional upon the accuracy of our
observations and the current state of theory,
Why, that's common knowledge, at your better "science shops."
Yes.
or would you also like
to see the caveat "Unless there was a miracle..."?
I don't know what you're talking about. Miracles have no explanation.
ID is a miracle.
No, it is not.
Yes it is, definitively. It's a real miracle. (if it happened). Look
into the concept of miracle if you don't believe me. But why would you
deny it? A miracle is an event that cannot be explained by the known
laws of nature and is therefore attributed to a supernatural or divine
power. The power behind ID would be super-natural.
You are talking about miracles again, ID doesn't require a miracle.
On second thought, to you, it is a miracle. Kind of like the first time
members of the Yanomamis heard the sound of an internal combustion engine
emanating from the canopy.
No, it's not that kind of miracle. It's a real miracle.
For our purposes, it's exactly the same kind of miracle and like the
Yanomamis you too will one day figure out that it really wasn't a miracle at
all.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 04:58:55 PM |
|
|
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rn0gl1t3sg8c38i1q6svoio4q5va0she1v@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uvtfl19uij19pgh208o98atk356570o1vb@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this
debate,
ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side that
has
much to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the idea
of
ID
you will find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where
evolution is studied. Science with a capital "S" absolutely
supports
the theory.
There are no other valid theories.
You're entitled to your opinion.
It is fact, not opinion.
But the difference between what you claim and the way science
works
is
simple.
Show a theory that falsifies anything and it will be accepted
In this case it's even easier, show that there are a significant
number
of
scientists that don't believe evolution is a theory and the work
they
have
done to falsify it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All
I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that
Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new
discovery
can
and likely will have an impact on current Scientific thought.
Which pretty much validates what I said about you not knowing
what a
theory
is nor how science works.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that allows
us
to
put a rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a problem
for
me.
Well, that's #4 who *knows* he owns the absolute truth.
Drones on parade.
Would it be satisfactory to just admit once and for all that all our
scientific findings are provisional upon the accuracy of our
observations and the current state of theory,
Why, that's common knowledge, at your better "science shops."
Yes.
or would you also like
to see the caveat "Unless there was a miracle..."?
I don't know what you're talking about. Miracles have no explanation.
ID is a miracle.
No, it is not.
Yes it is, definitively. It's a real miracle. (if it happened). Look
into the concept of miracle if you don't believe me. But why would you
deny it? A miracle is an event that cannot be explained by the known
laws of nature and is therefore attributed to a supernatural or divine
power. The power behind ID would be super-natural.
You are talking about miracles again, ID doesn't require a miracle.
If the designer implemented the design using natural laws (necessarily
genetic variation and selection) it would not be classified as a
miracle. ID as discussed here rejects natural evolutionary laws, and
calls them inadequate only about 150 years after their first
formulation and only about 50 years after discovery of the function of
the gene. By so doing, without an alternative natural mechanism in
mind, ID rejects the very essence of science, which is (a) its
provisional, incomplete nature and (b) its reliance on mechanisms as
essential to explanations. So the implementation of ID has to be
classified as a miracle. When it posits *natural laws* that explain
existing observations and the processes that evolution allegedly does
not explain, it can be removed from the category of miracle. Until
then it stays there, WRT anyone who *believes* ID happened. And, there
is no indication that ID-ists are at all interested in finding natural
mechanisms, prior to settling on the belief that ID is what happened.
So, they believe in a miracle.
On second thought, to you, it is a miracle. Kind of like the first time
members of the Yanomamis heard the sound of an internal combustion engine
emanating from the canopy.
No, it's not that kind of miracle. It's a real miracle.
For our purposes, it's exactly the same kind of miracle and like the
Yanomamis you too will one day figure out that it really wasn't a miracle at
all.
But the outsiders understood the natural mechanisms that the Yanomamis
did not. Not only do the proponents of ID not understand the natural
mechanisms of ID, they do not posit natural mechanisms; they merely
deny current ones. I believe they will deny any natural explanation
that is offered, placing them further back than the Yanomamis.
ID will remain a miracle for all concerned, including the ID-ists,
until they remove it from that category either by disavowing belief in
it, or by establishing natural mechanisms that explain its
implementation.
I don't see what's wrong with calling it a miracle, anyway.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 11:08:23 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vo3gl11selu4nota7qm9gve4vijs3bdr1u@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rn0gl1t3sg8c38i1q6svoio4q5va0she1v@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uvtfl19uij19pgh208o98atk356570o1vb@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this
debate,
ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side
that
has
much to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the
idea
of
ID
you will find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where
evolution is studied. Science with a capital "S" absolutely
supports
the theory.
There are no other valid theories.
You're entitled to your opinion.
It is fact, not opinion.
But the difference between what you claim and the way science
works
is
simple.
Show a theory that falsifies anything and it will be accepted
In this case it's even easier, show that there are a
significant
number
of
scientists that don't believe evolution is a theory and the
work
they
have
done to falsify it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All
I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that
Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new
discovery
can
and likely will have an impact on current Scientific
thought.
Which pretty much validates what I said about you not knowing
what a
theory
is nor how science works.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that
allows
us
to
put a rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a
problem
for
me.
Well, that's #4 who *knows* he owns the absolute truth.
Drones on parade.
Would it be satisfactory to just admit once and for all that all
our
scientific findings are provisional upon the accuracy of our
observations and the current state of theory,
Why, that's common knowledge, at your better "science shops."
Yes.
or would you also like
to see the caveat "Unless there was a miracle..."?
I don't know what you're talking about. Miracles have no
explanation.
ID is a miracle.
No, it is not.
Yes it is, definitively. It's a real miracle. (if it happened). Look
into the concept of miracle if you don't believe me. But why would you
deny it? A miracle is an event that cannot be explained by the known
laws of nature and is therefore attributed to a supernatural or divine
power. The power behind ID would be super-natural.
You are talking about miracles again, ID doesn't require a miracle.
If the designer implemented the design using natural laws (necessarily
genetic variation and selection) it would not be classified as a
miracle. ID as discussed here rejects natural evolutionary laws, and
calls them inadequate only about 150 years after their first
formulation and only about 50 years after discovery of the function of
the gene. By so doing, without an alternative natural mechanism in
mind, ID rejects the very essence of science, which is (a) its
provisional, incomplete nature and (b) its reliance on mechanisms as
essential to explanations. So the implementation of ID has to be
classified as a miracle. When it posits *natural laws* that explain
existing observations and the processes that evolution allegedly does
not explain, it can be removed from the category of miracle. Until
then it stays there, WRT anyone who *believes* ID happened. And, there
is no indication that ID-ists are at all interested in finding natural
mechanisms, prior to settling on the belief that ID is what happened.
So, they believe in a miracle.
On second thought, to you, it is a miracle. Kind of like the first
time
members of the Yanomamis heard the sound of an internal combustion
engine
emanating from the canopy.
No, it's not that kind of miracle. It's a real miracle.
For our purposes, it's exactly the same kind of miracle and like the
Yanomamis you too will one day figure out that it really wasn't a miracle
at
all.
But the outsiders understood the natural mechanisms that the Yanomamis
did not. Not only do the proponents of ID not understand the natural
mechanisms of ID, they do not posit natural mechanisms; they merely
deny current ones. I believe they will deny any natural explanation
that is offered, placing them further back than the Yanomamis.
ID will remain a miracle for all concerned, including the ID-ists,
until they remove it from that category either by disavowing belief in
it, or by establishing natural mechanisms that explain its
implementation.
I don't see what's wrong with calling it a miracle, anyway.
It's getting late here and I'm thinking about a very complex explanation for
you that involves the behavior of finite amplitude compression waves in a
closed pulsating system. (No, I'm not doing that just to go one up on you,
it's part of my normal work.) The point I was going to make can't be solved
with the hyperbolic partial differential equations that are up right now so
I was going to have to develop some numerical techniques to get to where I
wanted to go with it...Just to give you something with a little more density
to chew on. Which, no doubt, you could easily turned a phrase on anyway.
Nah, I don't think so.
It's been a chuckle, Jim. However, the same broader topics have been
repeated so often and pounded into the ground so hard on this deal that it's
time to let it go, at least for me anyway. I do think that evolution has
failed. I also think it is going to die a slow agonizing death in which a
generation of die hard old men will sit around cramped tables in dated
campus coffee houses and blame God and Christians for something they never
really understood. I will also predict that when Christians, as a whole,
understand what ID really is that they won't care much for it either.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
21 Oct 2005 12:15:36 AM |
|
|
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vo3gl11selu4nota7qm9gve4vijs3bdr1u@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rn0gl1t3sg8c38i1q6svoio4q5va0she1v@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uvtfl19uij19pgh208o98atk356570o1vb@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this
debate,
ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side
that
has
much to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the
idea
of
ID
you will find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where
evolution is studied. Science with a capital "S" absolutely
supports
the theory.
There are no other valid theories.
You're entitled to your opinion.
It is fact, not opinion.
But the difference between what you claim and the way science
works
is
simple.
Show a theory that falsifies anything and it will be accepted
In this case it's even easier, show that there are a
significant
number
of
scientists that don't believe evolution is a theory and the
work
they
have
done to falsify it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All
I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that
Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new
discovery
can
and likely will have an impact on current Scientific
thought.
Which pretty much validates what I said about you not knowing
what a
theory
is nor how science works.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that
allows
us
to
put a rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a
problem
for
me.
Well, that's #4 who *knows* he owns the absolute truth.
Drones on parade.
Would it be satisfactory to just admit once and for all that all
our
scientific findings are provisional upon the accuracy of our
observations and the current state of theory,
Why, that's common knowledge, at your better "science shops."
Yes.
or would you also like
to see the caveat "Unless there was a miracle..."?
I don't know what you're talking about. Miracles have no
explanation.
ID is a miracle.
No, it is not.
Yes it is, definitively. It's a real miracle. (if it happened). Look
into the concept of miracle if you don't believe me. But why would you
deny it? A miracle is an event that cannot be explained by the known
laws of nature and is therefore attributed to a supernatural or divine
power. The power behind ID would be super-natural.
You are talking about miracles again, ID doesn't require a miracle.
If the designer implemented the design using natural laws (necessarily
genetic variation and selection) it would not be classified as a
miracle. ID as discussed here rejects natural evolutionary laws, and
calls them inadequate only about 150 years after their first
formulation and only about 50 years after discovery of the function of
the gene. By so doing, without an alternative natural mechanism in
mind, ID rejects the very essence of science, which is (a) its
provisional, incomplete nature and (b) its reliance on mechanisms as
essential to explanations. So the implementation of ID has to be
classified as a miracle. When it posits *natural laws* that explain
existing observations and the processes that evolution allegedly does
not explain, it can be removed from the category of miracle. Until
then it stays there, WRT anyone who *believes* ID happened. And, there
is no indication that ID-ists are at all interested in finding natural
mechanisms, prior to settling on the belief that ID is what happened.
So, they believe in a miracle.
On second thought, to you, it is a miracle. Kind of like the first
time
members of the Yanomamis heard the sound of an internal combustion
engine
emanating from the canopy.
No, it's not that kind of miracle. It's a real miracle.
For our purposes, it's exactly the same kind of miracle and like the
Yanomamis you too will one day figure out that it really wasn't a miracle
at
all.
But the outsiders understood the natural mechanisms that the Yanomamis
did not. Not only do the proponents of ID not understand the natural
mechanisms of ID, they do not posit natural mechanisms; they merely
deny current ones. I believe they will deny any natural explanation
that is offered, placing them further back than the Yanomamis.
ID will remain a miracle for all concerned, including the ID-ists,
until they remove it from that category either by disavowing belief in
it, or by establishing natural mechanisms that explain its
implementation.
I don't see what's wrong with calling it a miracle, anyway.
It's getting late here and I'm thinking about a very complex explanation for
you that involves the behavior of finite amplitude compression waves in a
closed pulsating system. (No, I'm not doing that just to go one up on you,
it's part of my normal work.) The point I was going to make can't be solved
with the hyperbolic partial differential equations that are up right now so
I was going to have to develop some numerical techniques to get to where I
wanted to go with it...Just to give you something with a little more density
to chew on. Which, no doubt, you could easily turned a phrase on anyway.
Nah, I don't think so.
It's been a chuckle, Jim. However, the same broader topics have been
repeated so often and pounded into the ground so hard on this deal that it's
time to let it go, at least for me anyway. I do think that evolution has
failed. I also think it is going to die a slow agonizing death in which a
generation of die hard old men will sit around cramped tables in dated
campus coffee houses and blame God and Christians for something they never
really understood. I will also predict that when Christians, as a whole,
understand what ID really is that they won't care much for it either.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
Understood or not, ID will either be useful to Christians as a wedge,
or will disappear from the political landscape, whereupon science will
not be bothered by it. Of course, that's just my opinion.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
21 Oct 2005 11:05:16 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:v4sgl19cg7sc00id33sd7akivdg1e0cfhg@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vo3gl11selu4nota7qm9gve4vijs3bdr1u@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rn0gl1t3sg8c38i1q6svoio4q5va0she1v@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uvtfl19uij19pgh208o98atk356570o1vb@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
(snip)
Understood or not, ID will either be useful to Christians as a wedge,
or will disappear from the political landscape, whereupon science will
not be bothered by it. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Now, I'm disappointed, but better informed. So, your battle is political,
with Christians being your enemy and science being nothing more than the
current battleground. Knowing your science is politically driven explains a
lot.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
21 Oct 2005 11:47:00 AM |
|
|
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:v4sgl19cg7sc00id33sd7akivdg1e0cfhg@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vo3gl11selu4nota7qm9gve4vijs3bdr1u@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rn0gl1t3sg8c38i1q6svoio4q5va0she1v@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uvtfl19uij19pgh208o98atk356570o1vb@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
(snip)
Understood or not, ID will either be useful to Christians as a wedge,
or will disappear from the political landscape, whereupon science will
not be bothered by it. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Now, I'm disappointed, but better informed. So, your battle is political,
with Christians being your enemy and science being nothing more than the
current battleground. Knowing your science is politically driven explains a
lot.
Good. If someone wants to believe some variant of ID, that's fine by
me. The subject header of this thread is "ID and science" -- they are
separate, and should remain so. My main issue in this thread is
separation of church and state.The current venue is Harrisburg, PA.
Politics, science, law, religion, personalities, etc. are all
relevant..
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
21 Oct 2005 11:36:23 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:fg4il194b2sg8jos0hvmasqvbtbq44k2ua@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:v4sgl19cg7sc00id33sd7akivdg1e0cfhg@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vo3gl11selu4nota7qm9gve4vijs3bdr1u@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rn0gl1t3sg8c38i1q6svoio4q5va0she1v@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uvtfl19uij19pgh208o98atk356570o1vb@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
(snip)
Understood or not, ID will either be useful to Christians as a wedge,
or will disappear from the political landscape, whereupon science will
not be bothered by it. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Now, I'm disappointed, but better informed. So, your battle is political,
with Christians being your enemy and science being nothing more than the
current battleground. Knowing your science is politically driven explains
a
lot.
Good. If someone wants to believe some variant of ID, that's fine by
me. The subject header of this thread is "ID and science" -- they are
separate, and should remain so. My main issue in this thread is
separation of church and state.The current venue is Harrisburg, PA.
Politics, science, law, religion, personalities, etc. are all
relevant..
I've become apolitical this year. I've done so because the Constitution is
dead and the ACLU at the behest of who knows whom, yet, has stepped up their
vicious attacks on me my family and friends. I'm convinced this whole deal
will end up being settled on real battlefields using real weapons. It's just
a matter of time. I will reengage in "politics" when that time comes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
21 Oct 2005 04:08:23 PM |
|
|
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:fg4il194b2sg8jos0hvmasqvbtbq44k2ua@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:v4sgl19cg7sc00id33sd7akivdg1e0cfhg@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vo3gl11selu4nota7qm9gve4vijs3bdr1u@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rn0gl1t3sg8c38i1q6svoio4q5va0she1v@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uvtfl19uij19pgh208o98atk356570o1vb@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2cdfl1h0njtiq77l36dmakg1ob7hu9k3fu@4ax.com...
"Kelo Disaster" <goingoing@gone.net> said:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
news:6WD5f.6451$Zv5.5532@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
(snip)
Understood or not, ID will either be useful to Christians as a wedge,
or will disappear from the political landscape, whereupon science will
not be bothered by it. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Now, I'm disappointed, but better informed. So, your battle is political,
with Christians being your enemy and science being nothing more than the
current battleground. Knowing your science is politically driven explains
a
lot.
Good. If someone wants to believe some variant of ID, that's fine by
me. The subject header of this thread is "ID and science" -- they are
separate, and should remain so. My main issue in this thread is
separation of church and state.The current venue is Harrisburg, PA.
Politics, science, law, religion, personalities, etc. are all
relevant..
I've become apolitical this year. I've done so because the Constitution is
dead and the ACLU at the behest of who knows whom, yet, has stepped up their
vicious attacks on me my family and friends. I'm convinced this whole deal
will end up being settled on real battlefields using real weapons. It's just
a matter of time. I will reengage in "politics" when that time comes.
Well, I won't seek to engage you.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
21 Oct 2005 11:22:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:05:16 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
Understood or not, ID will either be useful to Christians as a wedge,
or will disappear from the political landscape, whereupon science will
not be bothered by it. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Now, I'm disappointed, but better informed. So, your battle is political,
with Christians being your enemy and science being nothing more than the
current battleground. Knowing your science is politically driven explains a
lot.
What do you imagine you are achieving by these deliberate lies?
You must be a Christian. We know you by your fruits.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 12:25:10 PM |
|
|
Kelo Disaster wrote:
<snip>
It is fact, not opinion.
But the difference between what you claim and the way science works
is simple.
Show a theory that falsifies anything and it will be accepted
In this case it's even easier, show that there are a significant
number of scientists that don't believe evolution is a theory and
the work they have done to falsify it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new discovery
can and likely will have an impact on current Scientific thought.
Which pretty much validates what I said about you not knowing what a
theory is nor how science works.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that allows us to
put a rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a problem for
me.
Well, that's #4 who *knows* he owns the absolute truth.
Again the man continues to show he has no clue abouot what science is or
how it operates.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 02:17:58 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WpQ5f.17721$6e1.13808@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
<snip>
It is fact, not opinion.
But the difference between what you claim and the way science works
is simple.
Show a theory that falsifies anything and it will be accepted
In this case it's even easier, show that there are a significant
number of scientists that don't believe evolution is a theory and
the work they have done to falsify it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new discovery
can and likely will have an impact on current Scientific thought.
Which pretty much validates what I said about you not knowing what a
theory is nor how science works.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that allows us to
put a rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a problem for
me.
Well, that's #4 who *knows* he owns the absolute truth.
Again the man continues to show he has no clue abouot what science is or
how it operates.
To put it in simple terms, I don't take you seriously. IMO, you don't
warrant any attention.
Sorry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 05:44:40 PM |
|
|
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WpQ5f.17721$6e1.13808@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
<snip>
It is fact, not opinion.
But the difference between what you claim and the way science works
is simple.
Show a theory that falsifies anything and it will be accepted
In this case it's even easier, show that there are a significant
number of scientists that don't believe evolution is a theory and
the work they have done to falsify it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new discovery
can and likely will have an impact on current Scientific thought.
Which pretty much validates what I said about you not knowing what
a theory is nor how science works.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that allows us
to put a rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a problem for
me.
Well, that's #4 who *knows* he owns the absolute truth.
Again the man continues to show he has no clue abouot what science
is or how it operates.
To put it in simple terms, I don't take you seriously. IMO, you don't
warrant any attention.
Sorry.
You don't take science seriously. I've said nothing that is not supported by
the scientific community.
You are in essence saying you don't believe 2 + 2 = 4 because you don't like
the color of the numbers.
I'm guessing that you accept homeopathic medicine and would base your
defense on "Science doesn't know everything".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
19 Oct 2005 10:52:16 PM |
|
|
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this debate, ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side that has much
to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the idea of ID you
will
find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where evolution is studied.
Science with a capital "S" absolutely supports the theory.
There are no other valid theories.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Do you have some evidence which contradicts his assessment that
evolutionary theory is as well-supported, and as accepted by the vast
majority of the scientific community, as any of the other modern
scientific theories (e.g. quantum mechanics, general relativity)?
If you do, I'd like to see it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All I'm saying is,
that there are complexities and unknowns that Science hasn't got a handle on
yet, and it is possible that new discovery can and likely will have an
impact on current Scientific thought.
That is undoubtedly true.
The theory of Evolution is as valid as the theory that allows us to put a
rocket on a comet or a tunnel diode in your computer.
That biological processes are well understood is not a problem for me.
What is the distinction, as you see it, between "our understanding of
biological processes", and "evolutionary theory"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
19 Oct 2005 11:18:23 PM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129780336.539944.164470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this debate, ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side that has
much
to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the idea of ID you
will
find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where evolution is
studied.
Science with a capital "S" absolutely supports the theory.
There are no other valid theories.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Do you have some evidence which contradicts his assessment that
evolutionary theory is as well-supported, and as accepted by the vast
majority of the scientific community, as any of the other modern
scientific theories (e.g. quantum mechanics, general relativity)?
If you do, I'd like to see it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All I'm saying
is,
that there are complexities and unknowns that Science hasn't got a
handle on
yet, and it is possible that new discovery can and likely will have an
impact on current Scientific thought.
That is undoubtedly true.
You need to take that up with Mr. Painter because he *knows* you don't know
"what a theory is nor how science works". You should pay very careful
attention to Mr. Painter because he owns the absolute truth.
I think he is related to Mr. Barwell.
As far as your other questions are concerned, I have already posted enough
on this topic for you to form an opinion about my position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 12:29:20 PM |
|
|
Kelo Disaster wrote:
does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All I'm
saying is, that there are complexities and unknowns that Science
hasn't got a handle on yet, and it is possible that new discovery
can and likely will have an impact on current Scientific thought.
That is undoubtedly true.
You need to take that up with Mr. Painter because he *knows* you
don't know "what a theory is nor how science works". You should pay
very careful attention to Mr. Painter because he owns the absolute
truth.
You have been given ample explanations and time to express yourself in a
manner that would show you have some concept of what science and theory is.
You have even been given the answer a couple of times and ignore it.
Either you don't know or refuse to say.
You imply that it is akin to philosophy, something science abandoned after
it came out of the cave.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
19 Oct 2005 11:35:49 PM |
|
|
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129780336.539944.164470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this debate, ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side that has
much
to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the idea of ID you
will
find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where evolution is
studied.
Science with a capital "S" absolutely supports the theory.
There are no other valid theories.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Do you have some evidence which contradicts his assessment that
evolutionary theory is as well-supported, and as accepted by the vast
majority of the scientific community, as any of the other modern
scientific theories (e.g. quantum mechanics, general relativity)?
If you do, I'd like to see it.
You are claiming that science does not know what it is.
If I understand your meaning correctly, that's not true. All I'm saying
is,
that there are complexities and unknowns that Science hasn't got a
handle on
yet, and it is possible that new discovery can and likely will have an
impact on current Scientific thought.
That is undoubtedly true.
You need to take that up with Mr. Painter because he *knows* you don't know
"what a theory is nor how science works". You should pay very careful
attention to Mr. Painter because he owns the absolute truth.
I think he is related to Mr. Barwell.
As far as your other questions are concerned, I have already posted enough
on this topic for you to form an opinion about my position.
You could have just given me a few sentences worth of answer, rather
than giving me a few sentences expressing your displeasure with some
other poster while *not* answering my questions.
But, if you don't want to, you don't want to... I was just curious as
to your position on the matter, but not so curious that I have the
desire to skim your posts in this thread in an effort to divine it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
21 Oct 2005 09:05:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:58:29 -0500, "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vJB5f.6086$Zv5.464@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
In racing vernacular it's called a "mind fucker". In this debate, ID
vs. Evolution, there is nothing about it on either side that has much
to do with science.
While there are a few scientists that might support the idea of ID you
will
find *vanishingly* few of them in the fields where evolution is st | |
